Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where that data comes from, or what that post even means, but I do know that most CEO comp packages consist of (a) salary, (b) bonuses and (c) equity. The chart above appears to only capture (a). Bonuses are typically within 50% (plus and minus) of the base salary. Equity can be all over the place and is part of where these numbers get screwy. I read recently that the equity grant to Apple's new CEO was worth enough to skew the 2011 CEO numbers entirely (and those grants typically vest over 4-6 years, but are often reported at the full amount in the year of grant).
Plus, the $100k-$250k range is what you typically see in private companies, often with very few employees (aka the vast majority of companies). The <$100k number is a pretty irrelevant data point - that says to me that someone formed a corporation and named themselves CEO. Whoopty-doo, I can make anyone a CEO for $500.
The chart leaves much to be desired, and doesn't really address the salient points.
> this <What the hell is a non-linear derivative? That sounds like wizard's speak.
I still don't get it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a special kind of skill to talk out of both sides of your mouth within the span of 2 posts.
CEOs: It's all market driven, look here, the vast bulk of them make less than $500k anyway.
Union Leaders: The prices are set by communism. Here, let me cherry pick some examples and pretend they are representative of the sample.
Uh...okay?
Don't mess with the bull, son...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your data and methods make several faulty assumptions, and leave much to be desired. I think the whole 354:1 concept can be questioned, picked apart, and analyzed further, but I'm not convinced that an even more half-assed analysis and calculation really achieves that (and the random swipe at union bosses just underlines the dishonesty and innaccuracy of the original set of calculations and conclusions, and makes the whole thing look like old fashioned identity politics *yawn*).
Here's your axe back. It looks pretty well-ground to me, but I'm sure you can do more.
And that... by comparison, I think ALL salaries over what I'm making are rediculous. My tax returns should be checked every year and everyone's salary set to my level or less.
Wow, good thing no one's suggesting that.
Though if someone did, I would hope they would spell "ridiculous" correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
The ironic thing is without CEO's the average worker wouldn't have a job.
Maybe this is not ironic.
.
The problem isn't that that people believe that CEOs shouldn't be well compensated.
The problem is that the scale has gotten so completely out of whack.
History does have at least one example of this situation ... 1780's France. We know how that turned out ...
It's completely out of whack. It's no secret that greed is the order of the day today. Greed rules like it never has before, and Capitalism being what it is (and what it means to the lawmakers in this country), the barbarians were let right in through the gate and took whatever they wanted. It's a cliche, but it's a cliche because it is rampant and true.
To my mind, the easiest way to put this in perspective, is to consider the pay structure of a utility company. The CEOs of these companies make a couple hundred times what a lineman makes. They "earn" this money mainly through reputation and by having degrees in things (sometimes in subjects NOT related to their function as CEOs). Basically, they get promoted through the ranks at various companies, until they wind up getting a job at PG&E, or some other, through contacts, friends and cronyism. They spend their days gambling on ways to make more money for the company, oftentimes by cutting costs and safety measures, putting more cost onto their consumers, and putting their linemen in danger. That's pretty much their entire function (well, except for when there is an explosion that kills scores of innocent people, as there was a few miles from me in San Bruno a few years back - then they also get to publicly apologize and act like they give a damn). Anybody who has ever worked with executives on a regular basis knows they fail more than they succeed, because much of what they do requires speculation. But since their key role is to protect shareholders, and they can do that at the expense of the consumer and/or the workers beneath them, their jobs are for the most part, protected. They spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves and the people immediately under them that their latest scheme is a good idea. But other than that, it's a lot of riding around in jets and propping-up of feet. Again, a cliche, but a cliche because it's true.
So for all this, the CEO is a millionaire. How about the lineman?? Well, linemen make decent money - most of the time - but is it enough to make up for the fact that every day they touch live electric wires and breathe explosive gas? Linemen and other guys like them deal with real danger every day, for a pittance of what their CEOs make for spending the day making the linemen's job harder and more dangerous - and then on top of that they pay for their own insurance.
So, CEO - facetime job you got through your contacts from school or some previous job, where your main function is to gamble with money, and then protect the shareholders from your mistakes by raising rates and cutting costs on safety.
Lineman - hard work in the hot sun, putting your life on the line every day to try to fix the dangers created by the CEO who has cut costs so the shareholders can get more money, doing a real service for millions of people who count on you to get it done right and get it done safely.
I know who I would want to pay more. And it isn't the glorified desk jockey with the old buddy from when he worked at X who has no real working knowledge of the industry in which he works, beyond how to play that industry up in the stock market.
(And don't even get me started on the stock market.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best thing about Grand Magus's threads, of course, is that they are usually just cut and pasted from elsewhere:
It should be noted, though, that even in Citizen Magus's original post it says, right there, "Chief executives of the nation's largest companies earned an average of
$12.3 million in total pay last year -- 354 times more than a typical
American worker, according to the AFL-CIO."
Boilermakers union president earned $506,000
Teamsters union local $435,000 a year
Laborers union president made $441,000
National Production Workers Union president was paid $591,346
Those salaries are an embarrasment, way over the top.
At the same time, of course, union bosses do make too much.
And it's usually union members who have been pointing that out long before The Washington Times. I wonder how much the late Reverend Moon used to make?
Those salaries are an embarrasment, way over the top.
Boilermakers union president earned $506,000
Teamsters union local $435,000 a year
Laborers union president made $441,000
National Production Workers Union president was paid $591,346
The only one I can independently verify is the Teamsters. And so can you, through the link above.
The stat listed is bullshiznit.
"Thirty-six Teamster officials made over $200,000 in salary last year, and 135 made over $150,000–more than any other time in Teamster history".
Still not good.
Patrick Flynn Chicago $435,252 $465,002 L 710
Terrence Hancock Burr Ridge, Ill. $300,250 $304,400 JC 25, L 731
James Hoffa Washington $294,285 $372,489 INTL
John Coli, Sr. Chicago $294,270 $342,963 INTL, JC 25, L 727
Randy Cammack Covina, Calif. $292,428 $321,430
Too high, over the top.
I couldn't agree more. But it's a far cry from the claim that the average Teamster local president makes $435k.
True, but if 50% of CEO's earn under $250k, then it would seem a title of 'CEO's earning 354 times that of the average worker' equally missed the point and was misleading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. That's about what I expected.You and me both. As usual, the bluster quickly collapses in the face of facts. Sadly, that never seems to make any difference.Did you seriously just link a paper that was integral to the investment strategies that led up to the financial crisis of 2008?.
Well, I have won this thread quite handily too.
Ok, I'm off again. See you around Christmas time.
.
Yeah, you no longer have anything interesting to say IMO.
But the title says CEO's, not 2% of CEO's not, Some CEO's, just CEO's.
Seriously? This is where we go? A quick and easy derail to union bosses scamming on the poor workers?
I think it is perfectly valid that if people are championing the worker and decrying the CEO that the workers representatives are above reproach themselves, and I don't think this is the case in the examples cited.
Those rem packages are excessive for those officials.
A CEO at a "big" company can read and
understand > this < paper.
The math is high-school level, and once you get past the jargon (and, really, it's not too difficult to know what hedge funds and derivatives are, especially for anyone who even casually invests) then it appears to be a straightforward opinion piece (I say that because there are other ways of framing the questions that might lead to slightly different conclusions, and because it in no way represents regulatory guidance). Unless, of course, you bother to compare it to recent "fluctuations" previously-mentioned.
How about this? My job requires me to read, understand, and use this paper, for example, does that mean I also deserve millions?
Oh, wait, never mind. He already declared that he "won the thread." Maybe that's the secret of being a CEO that us stupid people don't get. Look, I'll declare that I won the galactic empire and see if anyone brings me a star destroyer!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't pay attention to the man with the lear jet and the private island.. LOOK! LOOK ! At the man who can send his kids to private college!
My biggest problem with CEO compensation is the 'Golden Parachute.'
Indeed! It's a bizarre idea, that failure is so well rewarded.
About half to a third of that.
Being a Union Official is not supposed to be about 'making a buck', I did my time thanks, and I didn't put my snout in a trough.
About half to a third of that.Any rationale behind that?
Personal experience as both a State President of a Trade Union, then Union Secretary, until taking up position as a National Director?
Covering the Finance industry.Yeah I have some strong religious views on it.
My 'compensation' as State President, an elected position of the rank and file members, was limited to my incidental expenditures being re-imbursed (the ones I claimed anyhow) and added up to less than $500 a year for over a decade.
That's members money, to be spent on members, defending members and bettering their working lives; that's money that (for the working poor) they have sacrificed for and given up who knows what to pay their dues.
Their blood sweat and tears should be spent and apportioned accordingly.
Hee hee!
I should be sleeping, instead of checking, in, but, to all of you guys:
Come on, it's a Grand Magus thread. What did you expect?
And that... by comparison, I think ALL salaries over what I'm making are rediculous. My tax returns should be checked every year and everyone's salary set to my level or less.Wow, good thing no one's suggesting that.
Though if someone did, I would hope they would spell "ridiculous" correctly.
"You and me both. As usual, the bluster quickly collapses in the face of facts. Sadly, that never seems to make any difference."
-- bugleyman
Not even remotely relevant...
...though I do appreciate being quoted. Don't I get a quarter or something?
Come on, it's a Grand Magus thread. What did you expect?
Flagellation of hyperbolic straw men.
I was not disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that they often sit on the boards of each other's companies and help determine what the executives get paid. No possibility of problems there is there.
What is is that called again? Conflict of...? Sorry, I can't remember. Which is good, because I'm sure it was just class-warfare rhetoric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flagellation of hyperbolic straw men.
I was not disappointed.
Hee hee!
Indeed, Citizen Magus has long been one of my favorite trolls.
In fact, there was once an awesome post by Celestial Healer spelling out the relationship between Citizen Magus and Comrade Dingo. IIRC, it ran:
GM poses inane question and then dismisses the answers while Yellowdingo proposes inane solutions to questions nobody has asked.
Hee hee!
My 'compensation' as State President, an elected position of the rank and file members, was limited to my incidental expenditures being re-imbursed (the ones I claimed anyhow) and added up to less than $500 a year for over a decade.
That's members money, to be spent on members, defending members and bettering their working lives; that's money that (for the working poor) they have sacrificed for and given up who knows what to pay their dues.
Their blood sweat and tears should be spent and apportioned accordingly.
Hmmm. Well, if true, the Australian trade union business model must be very different from the American one.
Anyway, the Leninist dictum that an elected official should make the same wage of an average workingman would be ideal, I agree, but since we live in the big, bad capitalist world, twice or thrice the pay of the highest paid member seems much more likely a goal worth attaining short of international proletarian socialist revolution.
UPS delivery drivers make in the vicinity of $80k a year, and over-the-road truck drivers--when they can find full-time hours--can make even more, so I'm comfortable with $100-$150k.
Boilermakers and Laborers make pretty awesomely decent cash as well (when they are working full-time), but seeing as the Moonies' mouthpiece was so wrong about Teamster officials' pay, I see no reason to believe their other stats, either. I believe the article that Citizen Magus plagi--er, borrowed--claims that Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, makes 8x what an average worker (union worker?) makes.
More fundamentally, though, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the worker's representatives are beyond reproach. Close attention to my posts over the years should certainly disabuse anyone of that notion. The majority of union leaders in this country are bought off lapdogs of the Democratic Party who have forgotten the tactics of basic trade union militancy that built the labor movement in the first place.
Hell, if we could staunch the flow of union cash to such anti-labor asshats as Obama or Rahm Emanuel and break the unions from reliance on the Democrats, the Other Party of Racism, War and Plutocracy, I'd even agree to raising the union bureaucrats' pay.
It is seen as pretty poor form to accept payment for honorary roles, and it was only relatively recently that the Finance Sector Union of Australia introduced an annual payment to its State Presidents as a fixed quantum to offset the out of pocket expenses and incidentals; to save time and admin, they simply pay them around $1000 a year for their services, and even then that was considered a 'big move'.
Full time elected officials similarly do not get paid a significant wage, and as a State Secretary the amount I was paid was less than what I earnt as a working member in the finance industry. I earnt slightly more at a national appointment, and in line with the lower end of your comfort zone.
My salary, even at that level, was around a quarter that of our highest paid members who could earn significant sums in the industry, however the figure being around twice that of the average member.
I felt it was reasonable, but a little high.
That said, I did significantly longer hours than our members worked, so if I balanced their hourly rate and overtime loadings, there wouldn't have been too much in the difference at the end of the day.
Well, none of the jobs quoted by the Moonies are honorary roles.
Three of them are the head spots in their respective unions.
Their claim about Teamster local presidents, as I said, is a straight-up fabrication, so, again, I question the veracity of the other three claims.
But I certainly agree that most union bosses make too much money.
However, seeing as only 11.8% of American workers even belong to unions, I doubt firing all of the labor lieutenants of capital (in the awesome words of pioneering American Marxist Daniel De Leon) will make much difference for the average American worker.
Also, is anyone else out there in Paizoland surprised that in Australia, finance sector workers have their own union?
Though if someone did, I would hope they would spell "ridiculous" correctly.
That came up in another thread, too, in which I asked why that particular misspelling ("rediculous") is endemic among political conservatives. It seemed to me that spelling should not be affected by politics, but apparently it is.
It seems that I must apologize to the Moonies.
Union bosses’ salaries put ‘big’ in Big Labor
It was Citizen Stanislaw's sloppiness that was in error.